Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Wolfram tech isn’t open source (2019)

blog.wolfram.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 316 posts

Re: Why Wolfram tech isn’t open source (2019)

#151

Post by jhbadger »

chubot wrote: post #21
chrisseaton wrote: post #5

Most of these are about wanting control over the design of the software - but releasing their code doesn't have any impact on that - I don't get it? Java is open source - Oracle still tightly controls and manages the design of Java. For example 'Bad design is expensive' - how releasing your source lead to bad design? That's a complete non-sequitur.

They are arguing it does have impact on that. The company that created Java went out of business and was sold to Oracle for a fraction of its original worth. So Java was a business failure -- or at least I'd be interested to see someone defend Java as a business success. So I think it's realistic to at least engage with their argument seriously rather than dismiss it. The argument is that open source licenses are inc…

>The company that created Java went out of business and was sold to Oracle for a fraction of its original worth. So Java was a business failure -- or at least I'd be interested to see someone defend Java as a business success.

Just as Java is an afterthought to Oracle's database sales today, Java originally was an afterthought to Sun's workstation sales. Java was never intended to make money directly but rather as a conduit into the money-making side of both owners.

Re: Why Wolfram tech isn’t open source (2019)

#153

Post by candiddevmike »

sodality2 wrote: post #149
candiddevmike wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think they're wrong. Open source does not work with product management. There will always be friction with what is on the roadmap vs what the community wants to add. Additionally, if Wolfram wants to monetize it somehow, they have to own supporting it--including the contributions that they don't necessarily want. If they anger the community, then the community forks the project and Wolfram loses complete cont…

> There will always be friction with what is on the roadmap vs what the community wants to add. Open source does not necessitate listening to the community. Ever. Even if they were to release it under an OSS license, they could just turn off PRs. Or if it's "source available", same story.

Then the community forks the OSS project and you lose control/struggle to maintain parity/mindshare. Gogs/Gitea, VIM/Neovim, Bitwarden/Vaultwarden...

The ones that succeed keep the community happy and either focus on adding value on top (open core, don't give away the special sauce) or deliver half assed products (package up the community leftovers and hope support contracts/services fill in the gaps).

Re: Why Wolfram tech isn’t open source (2019)

#154

Post by Shikadi »

Ologn wrote: post #85
chubot wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are arguing it does have impact on that. The company that created Java went out of business and was sold to Oracle for a fraction of its original worth. So Java was a business failure -- or at least I'd be interested to see someone defend Java as a business success. So I think it's realistic to at least engage with their argument seriously rather than dismiss it. The argument is that open source licenses are inc…

> The company that created Java went out of business and was sold to Oracle for a fraction of its original worth. So Java was a business failure -- or at least I'd be interested to see someone defend Java as a business success. The name Sun Microsystems is one that I, and most people, associated with microsystems - with workstations (and servers). Sun was founded in 1982 with Bill Joy as a founder, who was already a…

This is a bit meta, but why does everyone refer to a company's revenue instead of profit or margins? Ignoring operating costs, if you manufacture 1M units for 20M dollars and sell them for 19M, you have a revenue of 19M despite losing money, so revenue says almost nothing about a company by itself

Re: Why Wolfram tech isn’t open source (2019)

#155

Post by carry_bit »

maccard wrote: post #120
VHRanger wrote: post #8

1 - 11: $$ 12. Doesn't want to show the world how bad the codebase is. Seriously, Mathematica makes naïve python code seem blazingly fast I've had the displeasure of porting 4k sloc of Mathematica to python and the script runtime went from 40min to 5sec.

> I've had the displeasure of porting 4k sloc of Mathematica to python and the script runtime went from 40min to 5sec While i can't comment on perf, how much of this is due to a rewrite taking advantage of knowledge learned? Would a rewrite in mathematica have been quicker than 40m?

I'd wonder if the Mathematica code was using fast constructs to begin with.

It's best to think of Mathematica as being similar to Python + Numpy. If you want your code to be fast, you want to spend as much time in the kernel (Numpy) as possible. That's why you'll want to take advantage of functional programming constructs, listable functions, etc. if you want to write fast Mathematica code.

Re: Why Wolfram tech isn’t open source (2019)

#156

Post by Shikadi »

tgsovlerkhgsel wrote: post #101
chrisseaton wrote: post #5

Most of these are about wanting control over the design of the software - but releasing their code doesn't have any impact on that - I don't get it? Java is open source - Oracle still tightly controls and manages the design of Java. For example 'Bad design is expensive' - how releasing your source lead to bad design? That's a complete non-sequitur.

Open source can either mean "publish the source" or "run it as a community project". Most of the benefits of open source (for the company) would come from running it as a community project, which would imply giving up some of the control. Simply throwing the code over the wall without accepting contributions doesn't meaningfully benefit the company. There are of course graduations between "don't accept any contributi…

>Some projects work because many companies depend on it and contribute (but they wouldn't do it - or at least not nearly as much - if the project was strictly centrally controlled)

I can't help but think of Linux when you say this, and Linux is strictly centrally controlled

Re: Why Wolfram tech isn’t open source (2019)

#157

Post by jopsen »

Releasing an open source doesn't mean you have to accept contributions. You don't have to be an open source project.

And as an open source project it is fair to say you don't want a contribution because, you can't foresee future implications, and you don't think the problem it addresses is something you have time to form an opinion on.

Re: Why Wolfram tech isn’t open source (2019)

#158

Post by turbinerneiter »

chrisseaton wrote: post #150
turbinerneiter wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Open source is a well defined term that means a very specific thing. The definition is exactly 1 sentence long. It's not a blanket term at all. Something is Open Sources if the code is published under a license that grants the user the right to study, change and redistribute to anyone and for any purpose. There is other similar things, like source available, or stricter subsets like Free Software. And there is many t…

> Something is Open Sources if the code is published under a license that grants the user the right to study, change and redistribute to anyone and for any purpose. That's how some people define open source. Other people use it to mean being able to see the source.

They are wrong. The term for that is source available.

There is absolutely no reason to have any doubt about the true meaning of the term when this definition is on every search result on Googles first page, in Wikipedia, when it's that name of a non-profit that defines it like that and when the page that literally is called opensource.org defines it like that.

Re: Why Wolfram tech isn’t open source (2019)

#159

Post by throwaway19937 »

chubot wrote: post #21
chrisseaton wrote: post #5

Most of these are about wanting control over the design of the software - but releasing their code doesn't have any impact on that - I don't get it? Java is open source - Oracle still tightly controls and manages the design of Java. For example 'Bad design is expensive' - how releasing your source lead to bad design? That's a complete non-sequitur.

They are arguing it does have impact on that. The company that created Java went out of business and was sold to Oracle for a fraction of its original worth. So Java was a business failure -- or at least I'd be interested to see someone defend Java as a business success. So I think it's realistic to at least engage with their argument seriously rather than dismiss it. The argument is that open source licenses are inc…

> The company that created Java went out of business and was sold to Oracle for a fraction of its original worth. So Java was a business failure -- or at least I'd be interested to see someone defend Java as a business success.

Sun and its peers declined because PCs running Linux became good enough; selling commodity hardware is a different business model (https://yarchive.net/comp/sgi_market.html) and it's incredibly difficult to move down market.

Oracle acquired Sun because they didn't want Java be owned by a competitor (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-oracle-alphabet-trial/ora...). Java was also why IBM offered to buy Sun; it seems hard to consider Java a business failure when it's most of the remaining value of the business.

Re: Why Wolfram tech isn’t open source (2019)

#160

Post by chrisseaton »

turbinerneiter wrote: post #158
chrisseaton wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Something is Open Sources if the code is published under a license that grants the user the right to study, change and redistribute to anyone and for any purpose. That's how some people define open source. Other people use it to mean being able to see the source.

They are wrong. The term for that is source available. There is absolutely no reason to have any doubt about the true meaning of the term when this definition is on every search result on Googles first page, in Wikipedia, when it's that name of a non-profit that defines it like that and when the page that literally is called opensource.org defines it like that.

Having a domain name doesn’t mean you own a term.
Post reply on HN